Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), § 10600, § 10940(a), § 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed and received by the Appeals Board within twenty days of the service of the order or decision plus an additional five days if service is not personal; this time limit is jurisdictional.
Applied to dismiss the petition as untimely.
From the decision · page 2To be timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed and received by the Appeals Board
within twenty days of the service of the order or decision plus an additional five days if service of
the decision is by any method other than personal service, including by mail, upon an address in
California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day
for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10508, now § 10600
(eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e.,
received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within
that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549
The Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.
Cited as binding authority for jurisdictional dismissal.
From the decision · page 3This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to
consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989)
211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979,
984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1962) 201
Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].)
Lab. Code, § 132(a)
To establish discrimination under section 132(a), applicant must show he was treated differently because of his industrial injury.
Applied to deny the discrimination claim on the merits.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's section 132(a) petition went to trial on June 15, 2021. On July 30, 2021, the
WCJ issued a decision denying applicant's petition. The WCJ found that defendant did not violate
section 132(a). In her Opinion, she noted that even though applicant may have been treated
unfairly by defendant, he failed to demonstrate that he was treated differently by defendant because
of his work-related injuries. Therefore, he could not show that he was discriminated against within
the meaning of section 132(a).